BTW, did anyone catch that reference to 'Crocs' during the game? I just about spit up my beer. Surprised Scott Campbell wasn't all over it.
Printable View
BTW, did anyone catch that reference to 'Crocs' during the game? I just about spit up my beer. Surprised Scott Campbell wasn't all over it.
I did, and asked, "Did they really say that, then all chuckle?" I wonder if Mrs. F found it as funny as they all did?Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Actually, there are quite a few in Packer history. Favre is just one of them. He is the most recent, so he seems more significant in comparison, but he isn't. Others were just as significant, but in their own time. This franchise was on the verge of descending into perpetual insignificance many times, until someone arrived who not just lifted them off the bottom, but pushed them to at or near the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Without the Packers of the '60s and the stadium expansions they fostered, the Packers might very well have been the Milwaukee Packers when Favre arrived on the scene (if in fact Harlan and Wolf had even been there before him) because they sure as heck wouldn't have stayed in the 32,000 seat City Stadium as it was originally built. Had the Packers of the '60s not been there when the NFL found its legs in the '60s, the Packers we know today might not even exist.
Nice history lesson..most people under 60 years old don't hold the 60s in as high a regard as we should (similar to viewing some MLB "stars" during segregation as frauds to an extent). Personally, I became a fan during Sterling Sharpe era and things took off with Lord Favre. I believe when a person is coming of age during a time the local organizations are moribund its a lot easier to gravitate towards certain players or teams< even rivals of the local teams lik me with Walter Payton, that stick out for specific reasons related to the zeitgeist. The landscape of the league was so vastly different that I don't think its fair to compare eras; not all players or coaches would transcend. So it is not necessarily "disrespectful" to illuminate game changers along an organization's timeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
But I do agree that Wolf knew what he was "doing"
BTW, most Black folk in the greater Milwaukee County area were not Pack fans during 60s 70s 80s..if you all need me to discuss several reasons why, I will. Although I am pretty sure any evolved person would already know and understand the sentiments.
I missed it!! What was the reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-pa...at-favre-built
What Ron Wolf said to Jason Wilde on Wednesday is probably what he meant to say Thursday Night.
Quote:
"Everybody talks about Lambeau Field and what it is now," Wolf said. "The old Yankee Stadium, they used to say it was ‘The House That Ruth Built.' There's no question that that new Lambeau Field is ‘The House That Favre Built.' A lot of us want to take credit, but Brett Favre did it. When you look up there at those six jerseys that are retired -- two from the Lombardi Era, two from the Lambeau Era and two from the Wolf Era -- that's going to be a big thing for me. A big, big thing.
"No one deserves it more than he does. He took this franchise and turned it around."
PLEASE name names! Who exactly can be put in same category as Favre with regards to the resurrections? I know it sorta runs counter to my earlier intimation that the evolution of the game negates some players being labeled an all-time great, but how many HOF'ers did he play with by the way? BAFFLING that people want to ignore what Favre did for GB and the league in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
seems like we are in agreement. Though, because the way football was structured in the past, the players perhaps were not as vital as the coach. The 60's revitalization was all about Lombardi - he made heroes out of the players. And it makes you wonder about the influence of Holmgren and Stubby on Favre and Rodgers. As I get older and wiser, I more often attribute success to the coaches, even though I understand the players are essential. Favre and Rodgers would never have been the QBs they were/are without their coaches and the systems they installed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
That's why I say there were just a few players who transcended their eras - kinda makes sense - there are only 6 retired numbers...
I think there is slight difference between sustaining the Packers and a resurrection of the Packers. If you look at the pre 60s Packers one name that you have to look at that sustained the Packers through very tough financial times was George Halas. He loaned a good amount of money and made sure to keep the rivalry going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous
Lombardi was also a character that could contribute to the resurrection of the Packers. He took a huge chance coming to Green Bay as he could have waited his turn to become the head coach of the Giants.
As far as players go, I struggle to find one name more important to the rebuilding of the franchise than Brett Favre. Maybe Reggie White who at the time was the best defensive player in the league leaving a big market for the small market Green Bay Packers. Sure 17 million had something to do with it, but I am sure the 49ers would have paid it, the Cowboys would have paid it.
Ron Wolf is the name you want. Without Ron Wolf, there's no Brett Favre, and no Reggie White, and no Antonio Freeman, Mark Chmura, and on and on the list goes.
Bob Harlan is the name you want. Without Bob Harlan there is no Ron Wolf. Without Ron Wolf, there's no Brett Favre, and no Reggie White, and no Antonio Freeman, Mark Chmura, and on and on the list goes - to Ted Thompson, McCarthy, Rodgers and beyond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz
In fact the past just gets rewritten altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
how do you know, Winston?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
Harlan should get the majority of the credit. Wolf and Holmgren and the players executed a plan pretty typical of successful teams and players. Harlan found a way to hide the malfunctioning Packer structure behind the Exec Committee and then behind the GM and managed to keep everyone out of the GM's way until people were too afraid to meddle.
yes, I am not trying to discredit what they all did, but as a player and face of the franchise Favre sold the Packers world wide. People tuned in from all over the place to watch Favre play the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Favre was a phenom no doubt. Look at all the BFFFs who left this place after his career was finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
Really? I just thought the internet passed this place by.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
coincidentally it passed this pale by about the time Favre left. Funny, that. But yeah, the 'internet' has mostly moved on... People are no longer inclined to speak in complete sentences or communicate fully realized thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
Sorry, that is a debate I now avoid at all costs, because it never ends well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous
You wrote: "how many HOF'ers did he play with by the way?" Who is the "he"? I suspect you want to turn this into a Starr vs. Favre debate, and I have no intention of participating in that. But, I will say this; all of the Packers of the '60s did play with a lot of HOF'ers. They also played against a lot of them almost every week. It's simply a numbers thing. The NFL consisted of about 600 players in any given week for much of the 1960s. Fewer at the beginning of the decade, more at the end of the decade. Each team (just about) had HOFers. The Bears had 5 in the '60s (I think) and they were an up and down team. For quite some time now, the NFL has consisted of about 1700 players in any given week. Yet, they still elect similar #s of players to the HOF each year (more or less). So, today's player plays with fewer HOF'ers, but he also plays against fewer in any given game.
Favre was the "Favre" even non-football fans came to know because of the media, and that is a hype that did not exist in the 1960's or before and was only just getting it's footing in the '70s and '80s. If the same media component was there in the '60s, Starr would not have been Favre, but he would have been the '60s version of Tom Brady. Hornung had a very high profile for his day, who knows what that would have been today. Nitschke too, for completely different reasons, was very high profile in the NFL. Of course, the dominating personality was Lombardi, who took cast offs from other teams and existing Packers who had accomplished nothing and turned them into immediate winners. That was an amazing turn around, as the '50s were a very dismal time for Packer followers as well. I hate to say "fans", because we weren't really fans in those days as we think of them today, just followers about what went on, because you might learn of it a day or two after it happened if it was a prominent event. Getting a draft list could take weeks.
I'm not ignoring what Favre did for GB. However, I do believe that other Packers have been just as important to the Packers being the Packers as Brett Favre was. Each in his own way, in his own time made the Packers what they are today. My knowledge only goes back to the coming of Lombardi ("Who?" I asked at the time.) I suspect that arguments can be made also for the importance of various Packers in the '20s, '30s and '40s. This is a franchise that was on the verge of extinction, and/or being something very different at numerous times in its history. Lombardi and the players of the '60s made it "Titletown", reviving what was last seen in the mid '40s. Harlan, Wolf and Favre were the keys to reviving it yet again; but football is such a team sport that others around them can not be ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Well, then, let's say Bob Harlan's mother. She said "yes" to Bob's dad one fine day or night, and had she had a headache that time, we'd still be mired in the mess from the 70's and 80's.
Thanks, Bob's mom!